0328 Sheet – Supreme Court Georgia Appeals of Leo Frank, 1913, 1914

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [410 words]

Here is the extracted text from the image:

Gentlemen, the object of all legal investigation is the discovery
of truth. That is the reason of you being selected, empanelled and
sworn in this case - to discover what is the truth on this issue
formed on this bill of indictment. Is Leo M. Frank guilty? Are you
satisfied of that beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this
case? Or is his plea of not guilty the truth? The rules of evidence
are framed with a view to this prominent end - seeking always for
pure sources and the highest evidence.

Direct evidence is that which immediately points to the question
at issue. Indirect or circumstantial evidence is that which only
tends to establish the issue by proof of various facts sustaining, by
their consistency, the hypothesis claimed. To warrant a conviction
on circumstantial evidence, the proven facts must not only be consis-
tent with the hypothesis of guilt, but must exclude every other reason-
able hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

The defendant has introduced testimony as to his good character.
On this subject, I charge you that evidence of good character when
offered by the defendant in a criminal case is always relevant and
material, and should be considered by the jury, along with all the
other evidence introduced, as one of the facts of the case. It should
be considered by the jury, not merely where the balance of the testi-
mony in the case makes it doubtful whether the defendant is guilty or
not, but also where such evidence of good character may of itself gen-
erate a doubt as to the defendant's guilt. Good character is a sub-
stantial fact, like any other fact tending to establish the defendant's
innocence, and ought to be so regarded by the jury. Like all other
facts proved in the case, it should be weighed and estimated by the
jury, for it may render that doubtful which otherwise would be clear.
However, if the guilt of the accused is plainly proved to the satis-
faction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the
proof of good character, it is their duty to convict. But the jury
may consider the good character of the defendant, whether the rest of
the testimony leaves the question of his guilt doubtful or not, and
if a consideration of the proof of his good character, along with the evidence, creates a reasonable doubt in the minds of
the jury as to the defendant's guilt, then it would be the duty of
the jury to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt thus raised